W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Violations of internal method invariants?

From: Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:47:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPh8+ZrGE8eL4=5FPny_mCdpd-VGBgxxmxK=0CV9nEMTk=2mrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 7/31/14, 9:43 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:
>> Right Thing: I think [[PreventExtensions]] on these objects should
>> always return false.
> The Web IDL spec requires this already, fwiw: [...]
> If there is an actual hook it can hook into now to do that, so much the
> better.

Great. Please pass along to the WebIDL editor(s) that this can be done
by specifying that [[PreventExtensions]] returns false.

>> I think [[DefineProperty]] on these objects
>> should return false if Desc.[[Configurable]] is false or if it's
>> missing and would default to false.
> This is not compatible with the HTML spec, sadly (and neither is the spec,
> as a result) for the following reason: HTMLDocument needs to be able to have
> a non-configurable own accessor property named "location".

If "location" is exempt from shadowing, then it can be exempt from the
restriction too. That solves the problem, right?

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 18:47:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC